Suppr超能文献

地屈孕酮与黄体酮用于黄体期支持:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Dydrogesterone vs progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

Barbosa M W P, Silva L R, Navarro P A, Ferriani R A, Nastri C O, Martins W P

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil.

出版信息

Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Aug;48(2):161-70. doi: 10.1002/uog.15814. Epub 2016 Jul 8.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of dydrogesterone and progesterone for luteal-phase support (LPS) in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry and WHO ICTRP.

RESULTS

The last search was performed in October 2015. Eight RCTs were considered eligible and were included in the review and meta-analyses. There was no relevant difference between oral dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone for LPS with respect to rate of ongoing pregnancy (risk ratio (RR), 1.04 (95% CI, 0.92-1.18); I(2) , 0%; seven RCTs, 3134 women), clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.93-1.23); I(2) , 34%; eight RCTs, 3809 women) or miscarriage (RR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.53-1.10); I(2) , 0%; seven RCTs, 906 clinical pregnancies). Two of the three studies reporting on dissatisfaction of treatment identified lower levels of dissatisfaction among women using oral dydrogesterone than among women using vaginal progesterone (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 2/79 (2.5%) vs 90/351 (25.6%), respectively; oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone gel: 19/411 (4.6%) vs 74/411 (18.0%), respectively). The third study showed no difference in dissatisfaction rate (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 8/96 (8.3%) vs 8/114 (7.0%), respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral dydrogesterone seems to be as effective as vaginal progesterone for LPS in ART cycles, and appears to be better tolerated . Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

摘要

目的

比较地屈孕酮和黄体酮对接受辅助生殖技术(ART)女性进行黄体期支持(LPS)的效果。

方法

我们进行了一项系统评价,通过检索以下电子数据库来识别相关的随机对照试验(RCT):Cochrane CENTRAL、PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、ClinicalTrials.gov、ISRCTN注册库和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(WHO ICTRP)。

结果

最后一次检索于2015年10月进行。八项RCT被认为符合纳入标准,并被纳入综述和荟萃分析。就持续妊娠率而言,口服地屈孕酮和阴道用黄体酮进行LPS之间无显著差异(风险比(RR),1.04(95%可信区间,0.92 - 1.18);I²,0%;七项RCT,3134名女性),临床妊娠方面(RR,1.07(95%可信区间,0.93 - 1.23);I²,34%;八项RCT,3809名女性)或流产方面(RR,0.77(95%可信区间,0.53 - 1.10);I²,0%;七项RCT,906例临床妊娠)。三项报告治疗满意度的研究中有两项发现,使用口服地屈孕酮的女性的不满意程度低于使用阴道用黄体酮的女性(口服地屈孕酮与阴道用黄体酮胶囊:分别为2/79(2.5%)与90/351(25.6%);口服地屈孕酮与阴道用黄体酮凝胶:分别为19/411(4.6%)与74/411(18.0%))。第三项研究显示不满意率无差异(口服地屈孕酮与阴道用黄体酮胶囊:分别为8/96(8.3%)与8/114(7.0%))。

结论

在ART周期中,口服地屈孕酮在LPS方面似乎与阴道用黄体酮同样有效,并且耐受性似乎更好。版权所有©2015国际妇产科超声学会(ISUOG)。由约翰·威利父子有限公司出版。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验